Salt Lake evening Democrat. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1885-1887, 1887-04-18
He Shows Another Phase OF the Vath
and Makes a Man Guarantee a
VirtuOus Future.
A Few Sticklers - An Independent
MOrmOn-An Interesting Day
Before Judge Zane.

r w Rarnes' Enos Stookey,
Iobn r Ohlad S. Bringhurst, DR.,
Jas w. Campbell, Ed. SneIgrove'
+ r. Bradley, Jacob Huser,
david Cook E. J. Swaner,
Charles Chrisman, Thomas WllnaIns'
Joseph A. Silver, a. y Mooiey,
John w. Andrew, z. e. Phillips,
Robert Eure. VIM. S. Brighton,
Emery Ward, Alex. rogers,
Incien SiInons, PHI. Towley,
Louis Stransburg.
David w. Hunter was first called. de
believed in polygamy and would not take
the oath, and was therefore excused.
d. M. McAllister believed polygamy
right. He had no present intention OF
violating the law, and thought, therefore,
that he could take the oath. He finally
concluded that he could promise not to
take another wife at any time in the
future, and was passed.
John P. Benson and George Holman
would not take the oath and were ex-
cused.
Henry Harker had never made study |
of polygamy, and did not know whether
he, believed it or not. He concluded |
after some consideration that he would |
not, under the present circumstances, !
take the oath.
John Erickson accepted polygamy as
divine revelation, and couldn't take the
OATH Excused.
r. w. Barnes did not accept or reject
polygamy; had been taught that it was
divine revelation, but didn't know Tor
himself. He was willing to take the
oath, and was accepted.
Enos Stookey, appeared with battered
face which gave him the appearance OF
| sob fhrnC m o.
chine. He couldn't take the oath and
} was excused.
John F. Oblad was excused on the
same ground.
Samuel Bringhurst, Jr., believed
polygamy to be a divine doctrine, but it
! was his intention to obey the laws of the
land. He said he had no right to believe
that he would ever be commanded to
{ preach or practice polygamy; if he was
3 so commanded he would not obey the
. command. Accepted.
4 James w. Campbell was accepted.
e Edward Snelgrove believed in the
divinity of polygamy, but was willing to
! take 'fthe" oath prescribed by the Ed
munds-Tucker law.
Mr.. Dickson: Are you willing to take
an oath that you will not at any time In
: the future take another wife?
! Snelgrove: am willing to take ''the"
e oath.
d Dickson: Are you willing to take can
e oath requiring that?
= Snelgroye: ga" oath?
d Dickson: "An" oath.
He was willing to take the oath but If
he should at any time be counseled to
a break it, he would do So Excused.
le Jacob Huser and David Cook, both be-
e lieved polygamy right, would not take
:. the oath and were excused.
1r J.F. Bradley was accepted.
at E.. J. Swaner didn't know whether he
E. believed polygamy right. He thought
le he was member Of the Mormon Church
10 in good standing, but did not know. He
as believed that polygamy revelation was
"a given to the church and was not willing
n to take an oath that he would no
at some future time obey it. Excused.
Charles Chrisman would not take thu
No oath and was excused.
II Mr.. Sheeks objected to the question:
of as put by Mr.. Dickson, saying that th'
We law did not require that he should TAX
nd an oath never to violate the law of God
&C but that he should not violate the pro
ed visions of the law, so long as he lives il
~, III any of the Territories of the UniteC
,iv States.
he Mr.. Dickson accepted the amendment
III Thomas Williams was not willing t
his take an oath; that he would never vic
nd late the oath while resident of any c
oe the Territories, and was excused.
A. d. Woolley did not believe in pc
lygamy, would take the oath, and wa
accepted.
in Mr.. Richards made an objection to MI
Dickson's construction Of the oath, o.
:. the ground that the law might be re
" pealed.
Mr.. Dickson said that the presumptio
Ne that the law would be repealed was ur
Sc warrantable, and that the law require
tire him to say that he will not in the futur
5he commit any of the offenses mentioned.
Judge Zane ruled that Mr.. Dickson
en- construction was legal.
ed Joseph A. Silver believed polygam
right and would not take the oath. E.
md cused.
to- John w. Andrews and William S
Brighton could not take the oath an
~, were excused.
hi Robert Enre said that his present il
tentions were as pure as Mr.. Dickson
but he could not say what his futul
would be, and could not take such a
oath. Excused.
WI Alexander Rogers and Emery War
were accepted.
@. P. II. Towley was not sure as to b
'o citizenship and was excused.
ing Lucien Simons and Louis Strasbul
elr were accepted.
era At this point McAllister arose and sal
ON that after hearing the question put to Il
eat others, he was not prepared to take tt
the oath. Excused.
the The jurors sworn were:
y John Erickson, r. w. Barnes,
az. Saml Bringhurst Jr., JAS. w. Campbell,
a.. j. F. Bradley, A. ID. Wooley,
ISe' Alexander Rogers, Emery Ward,
NJ. Lucien Simons, Louis Strasburg.
,,os The Court then ordered a venire +
- fifteen new jurors.
cd In the case of B. q. Raybould, truste
ME VS.. the Price Mercantile Company. L
ret junction heretofore submitted, ct
nd. Plaintiff has the right to have stock 81
Isle iected to the benefit of plaintiff. Injun
aw- ton changed and modified without pref
dice.
w. H. kellogg ct al. VS.. David William
ct al. Allowed till May 10Th, 1887,
a. comply with former order.
nu In the cases of the United States v
:, Alexander Edwards, Richard Collett al
ger James Wood, the defendants withdre
ing their pleas of not guilty and entered pie
l0e' of guilty. April S0th, at 2. p. m, was
as the date for sentence.
All the other cohab. cases were CO
will tinued, on motion of Mr.. Richards, un